Just what are we getting into in Syria?

  • Article by: Fred Kaplan , Slate
  • Updated: June 19, 2013 - 8:57 AM

The new strategy is as likely to involve strategic support as it is arms, and doesn’t necessarily signal escalation, but this is murky.

  • 25
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
pumiceJun. 18, 13 7:04 PM

From the article: "The scenario assumes that, faced with a more cohesive, American-assisted rebel army, the Syrian army will come under crippling attacks and that, as a result, the Syrian government will be forced to the negotiating table. It is equally or more likely, of course, that the Syrians will respond by stepping up the destruction and that the Russians will accelerate the delivery of their arms." Humanitarian concern for 90,000-plus dead Syrians of for ~150 civilians killed by sarin gas is disingenuous at best. Calls for "humanitarian intervention" make the blogger at the Ron Paul Institute (who wrote, "Only through the continued force of US arms, claim neoconservatives, does the rest of the world not descend into unspeakable savagery and tyranny--except when it does anyway, and then the solution is 'more intervention!'.") look really credible

pumiceJun. 18, 13 7:06 PM

If Congress wants to disregard the American people yet again on the pretext of humanitarian intervention, let Congress declare war, reinstitute the draft, and levy a tax to pay for this next episode of regime change and nation rebuilding.

supervon2Jun. 18, 13 7:29 PM

I am rooting for Assad. He looks like the clear winner and I don't want another Egypt.

uknowthagodJun. 18, 13 8:14 PM

Libya worked? How did Libya work? How's the country doing these days? Prior to US intervention there was no real presence of Al-Qaida there. Now they are there big time. And due to the blowback from what the US government has done, 4 Americans were killed. There has hardly been anything that's "worked" as far as US interventionist policy towards the middle east in the past 20 years...

theruntJun. 18, 13 9:18 PM

Russia says "NO" to no fly zone. Some 5000 Iranian fighters have joined Hezbollah and Assad's forces. France and Britain don't want to contribute arms to the rebels. At this point we can't "ratchet" things up enough to get the parties to the table. So, why spend a nickel? So we can save face concerning lines in the sand? You're not a loser if you walk from a fight you can't win.

dschachenmeyerJun. 18, 1311:24 PM

First rule of foreign policy. When your enemies are trying to kill each other, let them.

erikj3Jun. 18, 1311:42 PM

Getting involved militarily in Syria, even sending arms, is an extremely bad idea. Let's focus on our own issues (like, say, that we have epidemic levels of gun violence HERE, and that are roads and bridges are falling apart), and let other people solve their own problems.

football24Jun. 19, 1312:33 AM

The growing destabilization of Syria, and importantly, its surrounding counties, is, I believe, the reason for action by the USA now. And we cannot let Russia steal the show either. It’s a strategic move. I don't know if it’s a good idea, but I hope is does some good for one of real hot spots in the world right now.

firefight41Jun. 19, 13 7:08 AM

We are not the world police. We need to keep our minds focused on the issues of this nation as the first and only priority. If congress and the president decide to give arms to Syria, than all should be thrown out of office the minute the arms get created for shipment.

dazel21Jun. 19, 13 7:22 AM

So we can arm terroist that want to kill us but here in states you want to take are guns away,bazzro world.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters